Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My wife doesn't understand why I have a weapon in the living room when we watch tv. I'll be sure to have her read this article.
we were sitting in the living room of a rental house, someone tried the door, HARD, luckily I had it locked. Didn't have a weapon with me at the time so it could have been BAD for us. It won't happen again as I carry one 99% of the time now.
Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member
He didn't just allegedly break the window, he was allegedly gaining access or had already entered the home. Someone breaks into your house and what would you do? Ask them if they want some tea and crumpets?
You are listed as WA but since this event occured in OR I will cite OR law:
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
The bad guy having a weapon is not a requirement per the statute.
Civil liablity is another story.
YMMV
I have plenty of weapons for an intruder to pick up.
Now without looking,how many knives are lying around the kitchen?
How about other blunt objects?
Knitting needles?
Treking/ski poles?
Maybe you have an axe you leave on the porch for wood?
These constitute deadly weapons, and if he happens to grab one my life would be in danger.
Most every house has easy access to deadly force,even if the guy is horizontally challenged.
In other words,a butcher type knife might be in the sink when the cops come.
Hahahahah some tea and crumpets ahahahahaha. Lets just hope the bad guy doesn't turn around and sue the guy who shot him lol.
Let it be known that the sovereign state of "sleepyNseattle" hereby adopts the "Ding Doctrine" as official policy in regards to repelling trespass to "OUR" personal borders...ei; or otherwise known as our .........personal bubble.
He didn't just allegedly break the window, he was allegedly gaining access or had already entered the home. Someone breaks into your house and what would you do? Ask them if they want some tea and crumpets?
Post #14:"I'm sure glad I don't live my life in a constant state of paranoia!"
.
It ain't paranoia if somebody really IS out to get you.
.
("Your" here does not address riverrat373)
Also - saying you shot low to avoid killing an attacker can be evidence that in your own mind you didn't believe that the use of lethal force was justified. One thing any SD/HD instructor will tell you: no warning shots and never shoot to wound. You aren't shooting to kill - you are shooting to stop the assailant, and COM is the best place for (a) stopping shot(s). It also just happens to be more likey to be lethal, but that is irrelevant. A "wounding" shot is more likely to miss, more likely to over penetrate, and less likely to be effective. Besides, a leg shot is no guarantee that you won't kill the shootee. Are your knowledge of anatomy and physiology and your shooting skills so consumate that you can make a leg shot without rupturing the femoral artery while the target is moving and trying to kill you while avoiding getting shot? I am not advocating killing out of anger; anger clouds the mind. Do what is necessary to survive when confronted with the gravest extreme of peril. Any attempt to mitigate harm to the perp based on misplaced feelings of compassion reduces your own chances of survival, increases the chances of injuring an innocent party, and probably allows the assailant to lie on you in court. If shooting is justified, multiple shots to the chest are justified and necessary.
You are listed as WA but since this event occured in OR I will cite OR law:
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
The bad guy having a weapon is not a requirement per the statute.
Civil liablity is another story.
YMMV